Why are so many here horned up over the canon A70? *UPDATE w/pic*

[Ornery]

I'm using 98SE. My son's XP PC can read directly from camera, but I have no driver available from Canon to do this. Funny, the Sony plugs and plays on any PC that has USB on it.

BTW, how freakin' slow are those cameras to power up? The 707 can be recording pictures in 2.6 seconds, let alone read files from it.

 

[geno]

You're using an OS with ancient USB support and you blame the camera for not being backwards compatible? *shrug* to each his own. I agree that it's handy in your situation to be able to plug and go, I was until recently strictly a 98 SE user so I know how convenient it is to plug and play. However, knocking a camera because it doesn't cater to a 6 year old OS just doesn't fly IMO. Obviously the Sony is better for you in your case.

 

[Ornery]

Makes no sense to me, because WinME has drivers for it on Canon's site. I didn't install a driver when I first plugged the 707 into my PC, it just worked.

At my in-laws, my sister-in-law plugged her little Canon S100 in, and it required a driver for some reason. I downloaded that, installed it, and all is well, but I don't know why it's so special.

 

[trikster2]

Well I was originaly anti download program but I really like the fact that downloader uses the orientation sensor in my S50 to autorotate images for me. Saves a lot of time.

I also like the way it auto creates the directories by date, so if I've take pictures on multiple days on the same memory card each day goes into it's own directory. A lot easier than sort by date and then copying, manually creating the directories on my file server and copying the files using drag and drop.

And I like the autocreation of text files using the EXIF date. I normaly use ACDSEE to browse my images and the EXIF data is not handy, but with downloader I have a text file telling me all the settings I used on the camera to get a shot.

So when I screw something up I can look at the settings and know not to do that again.



Regarding the external reader:

Unless you have very small/slow CF my usb 2.0 reader will smoke your directly connected USB 1.1 camera. If you are using a large memory card this is more than worth the price of the adapter. And the "huge hassel" of removing the memory card.

 

[Ornery]

I'm just happy this old PC even has USB, let alone Version 2.

 

[StageLeft]

Well, once again Sears' lack of stock cost them a sale. Two days ago I was about to whip out my CC and buy a bigscreen and was informed there was a 2 week delay. Dito today on an S5000 Fuji - but again a delay, so no sale for them.

I've basically narrowed this down to a Fujipix S5000 or a Minolta Dimage Z1. As mentioned above I need video, and it has to have sound, and it has to be semi decent video. The minolta 640X480 I've seen a demo of and it's quite good. The Fujipix tops out at 320X240 (limited only by media size, not 30 seconds or something like that), but that's not a huge concern. I _like_ the fact that the fuji has XD media, since it's a new media type and capable. Pricey now but the costs will go down.

 

[Phuz]

I can take a decent pic with my A70. I process them all with PS.

(Mt. Nelson, BC)
(Toby Creek, BC)
(My Backyard... Invermere, BC)
(Snapped @ 120kmph, Kootenay Park)
(Snapped @ 120kmph, Kootenay Park)

The A70 is a sweet digi cam. As much as I like it though, I really need to get an SLR.
My roomate has a Rebel that I play with a lot and... well, I'm sold.

You've got a large enough budget to get something a bit better than the A70, tho.

 

[TJN23]

For those of you still hung up about "How can 3 megapixels be better than 4 megapixels?", take this exerpt from PC Photo magazine. It uses a car analogy to refer to digital camera benchmarks and comparisons:

PC Photo Magazine, November 2003, Steve Werner, Editorial Director/Publisher:
It's important to consider the rudiments of digital capture. In point of fact, digital camera sensors don't have pixels, as in megapixels; they have a grid of photosites, or tiny light sensitive photo cells. It's only when the brains of the camera translates the information gathered by the photosites into a usable digital photo file that the picture is rendered in pixels. While the simplistic measurement of potency has always been about megapixels (thing engine displacement), much of the true competitive measurement between one camera and another-- whether current competing models or new models compared to older models-- really needs to combine sensor size with the processing that goes on inside the camera to get the best interpretation of the data from the sensor (think engine performance and suspension setup working together to constitute a smart-handling car).

 

[Ornery]

Good luck, Skoorb. Sears is WAY down on stock due to the Christmas season. I doubt they'll miss your sale at this point in time. Try Circuit City. They seem to be replenishing pretty quickly.

I'd be careful about making video such a high priority. Don't you ever use a camcorder? I imagine if you did, you wouldn't care much for the video that comes out of these digicams.

Here's some food for thought. Seems as though you've settled on longer zoom cameras, so it may not matter, but I've come to a conclusion about what type camera I'll finally settle on. It's got to be higher than 3MP, especially if it's only going to have 3X zoom. I found out my blurred pictures were due to not being focused. When you zoom too close, in a dim light situation, the camera can't focus on anything. The AF illuminator doesn't have enough gumption to help. If I zoom wide for the same shot, it can focus, but the subject is only a small percentage of the image. I'll have to crop it to have the picture I want, so the extra resolution is a must.

Not sure if this S50 will be the keeper, but getting the higher MP really jacks up the prices. Combine that with wanting it in a small package, and my choices are slim! I'd say there's an 80% chance we'll stick with this one.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: adlep
Ok, Another score for Minolta:

The DiMAGE Z1 incorporates Minolta's most powerful flash built into a digital camera yet. With a guide number of 39 (feet), the built-in flash can illuminate a subject up to approximately 20 feet when used at the wide-angle position with autoexposure and auto camera sensitivity

And I know first hand that the flash used in A70 is difficult to use, not as powerfull...
Edit: And you can attach a professional flash to Minolta, you CAN'T use a third party flash with A70..

Well there are three settings for flash level on the A70....also you can use external flashes, you can't use hot shoe ones....however, again the A70 is a pocket camera that offers the features of a full size camera. The G Series is the hot shoe body.

The Z1 is for long zoom....it gives up a bit down low for that and while the movie mode appears better, a digicam is really not going to offer the quality that a DV cam will and is merely a feature for 'fun' than a purist.

And again the Z1 is $100 more than the Canon esp when you factor in a printer discount (I REALLY recommend the i960 or even the i860 for $50 less).

However if you absolutely have to have 10x zoom it's hard to beat the Z1 (the tele lens is about $100 (canon original) for the A70 I believe giving an additional 2.4x of power (about 7.2x Optical).

Å

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TJN23
For those of you still hung up about "How can 3 megapixels be better than 4 megapixels?", take this exerpt from PC Photo magazine. It uses a car analogy to refer to digital camera benchmarks and comparisons:

Good points the A70 uses the A60's CCD so at 3.2MP it's a little limited....the G5 uses the G4's CCD so at 5MP or whatever it's limited.....all makers push their CCD's to the limits. The one nice thing about the A80 is it uses the more updated CCD (from a G4 I think)....

These 'limits' are more spliting hairs usually. A little more pixelation or a little 'softness'....most of the time easily correctable with a software filter. Red Eye filters are amazing (I used to use them on a P&S film camera via scanned picture and reprinting....), my A70 doesn't show too much red eye, my wife's CoolPix 3500 is terrible (very red but that was known buying it)....they have a nice software package that eliminates it.

Å

 

[Phuz]

I'm not a big fan of taking highly zoomed pics with digi cams unless its an SLR.
You better have it on a tripod if you're taking shots zoomed over 3x optical, or ya better have a seriously steady hand.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Phuz
I'm not a big fan of taking highly zoomed pics with digi cams unless its an SLR.
You better have it on a tripod if you're taking shots zoomed over 3x optical, or ya better have a seriously steady hand.

Or the camera better have optical stabilization technology like the Panasonic Lumux FZ10.

 

[Ornery]

Finally got a handle on this bitch! It will now do my bidding, since I RTFM!

• 1.4MB Closeup
  
  Another...

Only concern now, is how long this proprietary battery will last. I can get them for $20.00, so maybe it's not that big of an issue.

 

[StageLeft]

Don't you ever use a camcorder? I imagine if you did, you wouldn't care much for the video that comes out of these digicams.

I don't own one, and they are so bulky (unless you pay $800) as to be too inconvenient to even bother carrying around, especially if I've got a digital camera to deal with.

It's got to be higher than 3MP, especially if it's only going to have 3X zoom. I found out my blurred pictures were due to not being focused. When you zoom too close, in a dim light situation, the camera can't focus on anything.

Can't you manual focus to get around that?

I know that the Z1 will give up some low end for some of what it offers like zoom and video, and I don't care all that much about the long zoom, but I refuse to settle below 320X240X 30 fps for the video of it. It's a critical feature that I must have, so the S5000 offers that, and the Z1 offers 640X480X30, or 320X340X30 unlimited (like the s5k).

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Finally got a handle on this bitch! It will now do my bidding, since I RTFM!

• 1.4MB Closeup
  
  Another...

Only concern now, is how long this proprietary battery will last. I can get them for $20.00, so maybe it's not that big of an issue.

Pretty damn good.

Try this.

Not bad for 2mp, eh?

 

[Ornery]

I don't know about you, but I can't focus for sh|t on these tiny screens. It's got to do it automatically, or I'm doomed. I'm so spoiled by my camera, that these others will always leave me wanting. So long as there's a work around, like pulling back to a wide angle, I can live with it.

Speaking of low light, the video from digicams is the pits in low light. I don't like carrying my camcorder either, but no digital camera can substitute for it. It's the right tool for the job.

This reminds me of when I was trying to get Sears to price match my F707. I went to the store, and they couldn't find it in their database to even order one. The guy asked me to describe it, and when I did, he said, "Oh, that's over here with the video cameras." At the time, it was marketed for it's video ability, so that's where they stuck it.

Edit: Eli, was that cropped at all? This camera won't get any closer than 4" at wide angle. I wanted to blur the background, so I had it zoomed a bit, which put me even further back. This camera does have compromises.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I don't know about you, but I can't focus for sh|t on these tiny screens. It's got to do it automatically, or I'm doomed. I'm so spoiled by my camera, that these others will always leave me wanting. So long as there's a work around, like pulling back to a wide angle, I can live with it.

Speaking of low light, the video from digicams is the pits in low light. I don't like carrying my camcorder either, but no digital camera can substitute for it. It's the right tool for the job.

This reminds me of when I was trying to get Sears to price match my F707. I went to the store, and they couldn't find it in their database to even order one. The guy asked me to describe it, and when I did, he said, "Oh, that's over here with the video cameras." At the time, it was marketed for it's video ability, so that's where they stuck it.

Yep, I agree.

I have never had any luck with the manual focus, because it is just sooo hard to tell if you're in crisp focus with the LCD, since the pic is resized so small...

With the Canon G5, it has a magnified spot that pops up in manual focus mode that makes it a LOT easier.

Were you at full zoom with those macros, or wide angle?

The A60/70 take better macros at wide angle than at full telephoto, but some cameras(like the G5 and its 4x zoom with fast f/3.0 lens) are the opposite.

 

[Ornery]

Eli, was that cropped at all? This camera won't get any closer than 4" at wide angle. I wanted to blur the background, so I had it zoomed a bit, which put me even further back. This camera does have compromises.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Ornery
Finally got a handle on this bitch! It will now do my bidding, since I RTFM!

• 1.4MB Closeup
  
  Another...

Only concern now, is how long this proprietary battery will last. I can get them for $20.00, so maybe it's not that big of an issue.

Pretty damn good.

Try this.

Not bad for 2mp, eh?

bracket the shot next time...exposure is off Great shot though

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Eli, was that cropped at all? This camera won't get any closer than 4" at wide angle. I wanted to blur the background, so I had it zoomed a bit, which put me even further back. This camera does have compromises.

Nope, that's the original pic.

The background should be sufficiently blurred if you use the lowest aperature(f/#) you can.

The higher the number, the smaller the aperature and the more depth of focus you have. The lower the number, the more wide open the aperature is and the shorter the depth of focus.

I'm learning! Slowly.... lol

 

[LuDaCriS66]

Are Pentax cameras any good? The Optio S specificly... was looking at either that camera or the Canon SD100

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Ornery
Finally got a handle on this bitch! It will now do my bidding, since I RTFM!

• 1.4MB Closeup
  
  Another...

Only concern now, is how long this proprietary battery will last. I can get them for $20.00, so maybe it's not that big of an issue.

Pretty damn good.

Try this.

Not bad for 2mp, eh?

bracket the shot next time...exposure is off Great shot though

Whatcha mean the exposure is off? Like its not really exposed properly?

Probably.. It could've been better if I had a lamp, but the overhead lighting of my room.... It's hard to get the subject lit, that's why I had to approach the nickel from an angle.. if I hover over it, its too dark. I think the angle and the shallow depth of focus give it character though.

I used a 1/30 shutter speed at f/2.8, ISO 50 for that shot.

 

[Ornery]

Hmmm, you think the exposure is off, eh. Looks spot on to me. That brings up the question, of how my monitor should be calibrated. I could tweak these images all day, but if my monitor is off, the images will look screwed up to others.

I shot a scene out the window, and it looked too bright in the LCD, so I backed off about -1.5EV. After I downloaded the pics, I could see that it shouldn't have been lowered that much. Guess it takes time to figure it all out, eh Eli?

Edit: Oh, you were talking about Eli's shot. Yeah, it needed more light. Macros are tough.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Hmmm, you think the exposure is off, eh. Looks spot on to me. That brings up the question, of how my monitor should be calibrated. I could tweak these images all day, but if my monitor is off, the images will look screwed up to others.

I shot a scene out the window, and it looked too bright in the LCD, so I backed off about -1.5EV. After I downloaded the pics, I could see that it shouldn't have been lowered that much. Guess it takes time to figure it all out, eh Eli?

Edit: Oh, you were talking about Eli's shot. Yeah, it needed more light. Macros are tough.

Especially macros of shiney objects...

If you'll notice, where the light reflects is *almost* overexposed.. it might actually be just a tad in a few places. But then the shadows are dark... heh. I took 27 pics of the nickel, using a full range of settings.. that was one of the best ones.

I really find that to be key in getting good shots. Shoot until you can't stand looking at it anymore, the worst you'll have to do is delete the bad ones.

That's my philosophy with any subject. I always take at least 2 or 3 pics of each thing, just incase there is some unnoticed movement, or whatnot.. and pick the best one.